MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133885704 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v14n3p53

Female Executives Leadership on Non-Efficiency Investment of Private Listed Companied in China

2021· article· en· W3133885704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengyi Fan, Wasi Phromthiphakkul

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvestment (military)BusinessBottleneckChinaEmpirical researchAccountingBusiness administrationEconomicsOperations managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between female executives and non-efficient investment behavior in enterprises. The data of China's private listed companies from 2016 to 2017 were selected for empirical study, the variables of the model were defined and measured. The author designs the current research to be mixed methods research, qualitative and quantitative research approach. The results show that: (1) increase in the proportion of female CEOs relative to female executives can significantly inhibit non-efficient investment; (2) the level of education has a significant moderating effect on both female executives and the non-efficient investment of female CEOs and companies; (3) Social capital has a moderating effect on the non-efficient investment of female executives and enterprises, but has no significant effect on the gender of CEOs and non-efficient investment of enterprises. The conclusion of this study can better break the bottleneck of female workplace, develop the leadership of female executives in a targeted way, and improve the management level and performance of enterprises through the relationship between female executives and non-efficient investment behaviors of enterprises.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.410
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.022 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207